Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
They are correct about the original reasoning behind the second amendment. But the argument that the American military cannot be defeated if it has no political holds on it is nonsensical - it can't be defeated if it has Star Wars type blasters, either and that's more likely than a military with no political holds in the US. It literally has no precedent. And it may not even be true - the US should not have won against the British, but we did (mostly via attrition, but a win is a win!).
The better argument is that if such action occurred, the resultant government could never again function as the US government we want. Taking up arms isn't going to get better governance - it's going to destroy the very governance you're after.
Also, yeah, there are people who take the gun ownership thing to ridiculous levels - but that's literally true of almost everything. There's always at least one moron that takes things too far - it's not a good argument against anything.
I'd prefer a world minus any guns at all - but I can't have that. Abolition sounds great - except for the patently unfair and unconstitutional thing. Other countries do lots of things - which is evidence that things can work but it has to be taken in context - and there are no countries all that similar to the US with such bans (to be fair, there aren't that many countries that are all that similar to the US! We take the First Amendment for granted yet it is virtually unique in the world).
Personally, I'm for strengthening the civil liabilities (your dog, your responsibility, yes, really) more than increasing specific weapons laws beyond what's in place now (adding more complexity just adds more wiggle room) and toughening up the holes in the interstate trade (if you can't legally buy it where you live, you shouldn't be able to subvert that law by going to another state).
The simple reason is that they are measures we can get and that can make a difference. Measures that cannot be implemented are of no use - and we are decades away from any real shot at convincing the nation that any form of stringent ban is a good idea - at the very least. Probably more thanks the Court incorporating the second amendment...
Comment